I know this is the FT newsgroup.... but I'm hoping someone can address this.
Is it just me or is there something missing in SGII.
Scenario: 2 clumps of cover 70 m apart (7"). Infantry squad A (Red team) in
clump 1. Infantry squad B (Blue team) in clump 2.
A has been setup in a defensive position, but could not (for whatever reason)
engage squad B before it got to clump 2. Squad B is advancing
in Advance-To-Contact mode (bounding up and down... standard combat
move) assuming enemy nearby (maybe other units of force engaged nearby). Maybe
it knows A is in the clump ahead. A's officer has issued the order: Shoot the
enemy when they leave the woods to move advance on our As position. Several
turns pass while B does nothing, A waits for them to move to 'swat them like a
bug'. B then (during its activation) does a combat move (rolls a 3 lets say)
stops 10m in front of As woodsedge position and opens up with a fire action,
tearing A apart. Now, A was just sitting there waiting to swat B when B moved,
but since B didn't perform 2 move actions, they had to let B run 60 m IN PLAIN
SIGHT and then conduct a round of fire combat AT THEIR POSITION WITHOUT
RETURNING FIRE. Hmmm.... methinks I see a problem.
My question: Have I missed something in the current rules? I suspect
not. I think what the game is missing is a Gaurd/Overwatch action of
some sort that will allow a unit to basically watch a line of approach and say
"fire when you see the whites of their eyes boys" or "shoot anything that
moves over there!". In real life, my experience with even small squads setup
in such situations is that the moving unit (moving towards a stationary unit
aware of their approach and waiting for them locked and loaded) is that the
moving unit would get totally annihilated (a platoon fire is something to see,
but even a squad with C7s and Minimis could put out enough fire to destroy
another squad moving across the open like that) and definitely the moving unit
definitely couldn't move up and then conduct a close range fire action before
being chewed to bits.....its usually a bad idea to move within the
unobstructed line of sight of an enemy unit which can fire upon you and which
is inclined to!
I have several ideas for such an overwatch implementation which I'm willing to
share if anyone is interested, or if I haven't overlooked some way to handle
things within the context of existing rules.
BTW, all complaints to the contrary (and there are few), Stargrunt II is an
excellent system which seems to not only offer flexibility and ease of play,
but covers most oddball situations you might expect to need. Kudos to the GZG
crew!
Thomas.
/************************************************
I don't think an apology is in order. I was directed to this list as a
FT/DS/SG list not just exclusive FT.
I agree about the "Overwatch" "Watch and shoot" "Fixed Lines" or whatever you
want to call it. The Reaction Fire rule I think was meant to cover that
situation. Well, a House Rule of some sort until a "Rules
Ammendment/Addendum" (yeah, I shudder at the mention of those too) comes
out. Jeremy Sadler's SG Web Page would be a fine place to put it. Other
questions that spring to mind might include the unit facing in buildings type
of problem; although we generally manage to work them out ourselves.
Anyway, the problem; if B is on the edge of the cover, then A could have fired
at them at any time they were sitting there. If not, then they must have been
Inside the woods; ie can't see, can't shoot BUT can't be seen or shot at.
Assume then that they on the edge of the woods (A is dumb if they didn't shoot
within close range anyway!).
6" move would require some of that move inside the woods to get out. So if B
are on the edge of the wood then a minimum of 1" move to get out of the trees;
doubled for poor terrain to 2", then they have 4" move left. Now if A is in a
concealed position the scenario should have give them a number of dummy
markers. So B would have to do a spotting turn on them first or else the fire
would be Recon By Fire and no casualties anyway.
I know this is a specific situation and my response above was specific to that
one. Actually we've never actually had that exact problem arise.
Cheers,
Owen G
> ----------
The Reaction Fire rule (see p.53) was meant to cover this type of situation,
but as you point out, this rule does not apply in your example because the
unit only used ONE action for movement.
Bear in mind that if both squads A and B are NOT on the edge of the clumps
then the situation you describe cannot happen - you cannot fire on a
target that is not on the edge of a wood.
If _both_ are on the edge of the clumps then neither needs to move in
order
to fire - 7" is pretty close range for most weapons.
The initiative is in fact with the squad that moves. Because the distance is
short then it should probably be dealt with by a close assault.
You will usually find that careful interpretation of the rules will resolve
most issues.
Any comments, Jon?
Mike Elliott, GZG
______________________________ Reply Separator
____________________________
_____
Subject: Stargrunt II question
Author: owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk at INTERNET
Date: 22/01/1998 0:52
I know this is the FT newsgroup.... but I'm hoping someone can address this.
Is it just me or is there something missing in SGII.
Scenario: 2 clumps of cover 70 m apart (7"). Infantry squad A (Red team) in
clump 1. Infantry squad B (Blue team) in clump 2.
A has been setup in a defensive position, but could not (for whatever reason)
engage squad B before it got to clump 2. Squad B is advancing in
Advance-To-Contact mode (bounding up and down... standard combat move)
assuming enemy nearby (maybe other units of force engaged nearby). Maybe it
knows A is in the clump ahead. A's officer has issued the order: Shoot the
enemy when they leave the woods to move advance on our As position. Several
turns pass while B does nothing, A waits for them to move to 'swat them like a
bug'. B then (during its activation) does a combat move (rolls a 3 lets say)
stops 10m in front of As woodsedge position and opens up with a fire action,
tearing A apart. Now, A was just sitting there waiting to swat B when B moved,
but since B didn't perform 2 move actions, they had to let B run 60 m IN PLAIN
SIGHT and then conduct a round of fire combat AT THEIR POSITION WITHOUT
RETURNING FIRE. Hmmm.... methinks I see a problem.
My question: Have I missed something in the current rules? I suspect not. I
think what the game is missing is a Gaurd/Overwatch action of
some sort that will allow a unit to basically watch a line of approach and say
"fire when you see the whites of their eyes boys" or "shoot anything that
moves over there!". In real life, my experience with even small squads setup
in such situations is that the moving unit (moving towards a stationary unit
aware of their approach and waiting for them locked and loaded) is that the
moving unit would get totally annihilated
(a
platoon fire is something to see, but even a squad with C7s and Minimis could
put out enough fire to destroy another squad moving across the open like that)
and definitely the moving unit definitely couldn't move up and then conduct a
close range fire action before being chewed to bits.....its usually a bad idea
to move within the unobstructed line of sight of an enemy unit which can fire
upon you and which is inclined to!
I have several ideas for such an overwatch implementation which I'm willing to
share if anyone is interested, or if I haven't overlooked some way to handle
things within the context of existing rules.
BTW, all complaints to the contrary (and there are few), Stargrunt II is an
excellent system which seems to not only offer flexibility and ease of play,
but covers most oddball situations you might expect to need. Kudos to the GZG
crew!
Thomas.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2034
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Our Web Page: http://www.sofkin.ca
**************************************************/
> I don't think an apology is in order. I was directed to this list as a
Gotcha!
> I agree about the "Overwatch" "Watch and shoot" "Fixed Lines" or
comes
> out. Jeremy Sadler's SG Web Page would be a fine place to put it.
Other
> questions that spring to mind might include the unit facing in
Agreed, but it doesn't hurt. I have a version in testing state for a possible
Overwatch action, so when I'm done, I'll make it available on my own web page
and put the URL up here.
> Anyway, the problem; if B is on the edge of the cover, then A could
70m A to B is an intentional distance in this contrived example, outside of
close range for some units, so it wasn't as advantageous
for A to fire as it would be once B had advanced another 10+ meters!
> 6" move would require some of that move inside the woods to get out.
So
> if B are on the edge of the wood then a minimum of 1" move to get out
Okay, but let's take for Granted that B in its woodsline had conducted
spotting and knew A was there. This is a somewhat contrived example. It could
have equally been B approaches A in the open, and A wants to fire when the
enemy first enters short range, regardless of when that is, and will hold fire
otherwise. WIthin the rules, it is quite possible, with a good combat move,
that B could sprint from medium (as far as 13") range to 1" away in one move,
then conduct a normal fire action before A (who were sitting patiently
waiting) could fire. And (not that I even want to be identified as a rules
lawyer - awful species, should be extinct) that doesn't mate too well
with reality. If I had a modern assault weapon, and someone had to close
between 150 and 350 feet in front of me when I was waiting for them, there is
very little chance they'd do this without me at least
firing! I've done Advance-To-Contact, and its fast and a good way to
advance, but it doesn't stun your opponents into not shooting....
> I know this is a specific situation and my response above was specific
Like I said, its a good (great!) set of rules. I'll post my "Overwatch" rules
and let everyone know where they are (then don my light body armour and seek
hard cover.....).
TTYL
Thomas.
/************************************************
> The Reaction Fire rule (see p.53) was meant to cover this type of
I could see that, it just seems somewhat inadequate to cover the case I'm
talking about.
> Bear in mind that if both squads A and B are NOT on the edge of the
> If _both_ are on the edge of the clumps then neither needs to move in
The replies I've received show that I've picked a bad description of the
problem since everyone is hung up on 'woods' element. I just used that as a
'setting'. It wasn't really germaine to the problem.
If you focus on the fact that a unit can move between 20m and 120m in plain
sight of the enemy, and then conduct another action (except movement) without
any interruption, even though the entire enemy force might be sitting there
watching them, waiting to fire when they reach optimal range, you appreciate
the problem. A unit can dash from medium or long range to short range IN PLAIN
SIGHT THE WHOLE WAY in the face of a WAITING ARMED enemy and then conduct
another action (Reorganize, Fire, etc.) all before the observing enemy can
open fire. That is the problem. Ignore the woods.
Also, I realize 70m is close to close assault distance. Lets pick an even more
contrived (no terrain involved, both A and B start 140 m apart in the open)
example where they (the moving force, B in my previous examples) are 140 m
out, then they activate and dash 120m as there combat move (leaving them 20 m
from A), and then fire
(probably very effectively) at the patiently waiting-to-die formation
A whose only goal in life was to engage B at 60 m. Now one can (I believe
fatuously) argue that A should have activated and fired at B at 140m or that B
dashed so fast they caught A by surprise, but that 140 m dash might be from
long range to short! And a dash from long to short where the prepared
defending player can't engage you seems just wrong. I mean, I've been a member
of a squad in contact with other
units closing by rapid bounds or Advance-To-Contact drill if you
prefer, and even when the defenders (us) were disorganized as any group of ten
or less guys could really be, there is no way that an enemy force could have
moved from a long range into an effective or short range without us at least
getting the opportunity to put rounds downrange and engage them. Covering 20
to 120m in the sight of a stationary foe who might have the inclination to
fire upon you is generally speaking an undesirable situation (I might go so
far as to suggest it is a recurrent nightmare of most ground pounders), let
alone conducting some other action in plain sight afterwards!. My Infantry CO
always said you wanted to fight dead and dying soldiers, not living,
breathing, awake and aware men with weapons and an inclination to use them.
Sometimes you have to 'run into the guns' but it should be a scenario where
you pretty much expect to take brutal casualties because you don't have any
choice. You should never expect to be able to charge a prepared position and
(with a lucky die roll) cover the distance before they can fire..... I think
any infantry commander that depended on this tactic under normal circumstances
would be court martialled. Without some for of Overwatch or Gaurd, it seems to
me that (assuming mean roll of 3.5 on your combat move) you stand a pretty
decent chance of covering 70m (enough to take you from medium range to short,
and if you roll good, enough to take you from much further out, perhaps long
range, to short) AND then conducting a fire action before the emplaced enemy
can reply.
> The initiative is in fact with the squad that moves. Because the
See above for at least one example of something that probably
couldn't be dealt with as a close assault - 120m out to start with,
roll average combat move 70m (yes I realize you'd actually have 80m or 60m,
but I'm talking mean distance) and you are inside short range and firing away
at the enemy before they can take the volley they've been waiting to shoot,
despite having moved your movement in their sights).
> You will usually find that careful interpretation of the rules will
Agreed. The rules are well written (as an aside, GZG has done a much better
job of writing concise, clear and well edited rules as
compared to industry gaming giants like TSR - who should probably
fire the copy editors on their latest set of hardcovers) and playable.
But I think a house rule like some form of Gaurd or Overwatch action might be
worth playtesting. Like I said, I'll post the URL maybe later tonight or
tomorrow once I transform my ideas into HTML and people can try it out or not
as they see fit. If no one likes it but me, then I'll be the only one to use
it. If it is simple, and others like it, then it might be a good idea.
Defenders traditionally have been given at least a 2:1 advantage vs. attackers
(hence why you attack at 3:1 minimum if you can swing it), and the fact that
they can watch you advance and pick effecive moments to fire is probably part
of that.
> Any comments, Jon?
I'm interested to here anything that Jon might have to contribute. BTW, thanks
for the input Mike! Keep up the good work guys. I've seen and played at least
20 wargames and this has the most elegant rule system which still simulated a
lot of circumstances. I'm happy (despite appearances to the contrary) with the
rules!
Tom.
/************************************************
Tom,
I'm sorry, but I think you are missing the point. Think about it for a minute.
Lets assume "close" range is 2 range bands. Therefore, for any troops of
Regular or better quality, your starting distance of 140m
(14")
is close range.
In order to have arrived at that point (14" from the enemy) means that in
their previous activation they must have moved to that point. If the defenders
didn't activate first then the attacking unit is fired upon at a range of 14".
In my experience, if your defenders are regular or better at that sort of
range (target rolls a D6) they will probably cause at least 1 or 2 casualties
as well as suppressing the target. Its difficult to be any more precise due to
the variability built into the SGII combat system.
So your example is artificial. Chances are your attacking unit is now 14" from
the enemy, suppressed with one or more casualties down. Hmm. In order to move
at all, they've got to first remove that suppression. Of course, if they are
caught in cross fire from more than one defending unit (your
defenders were supported weren't they?) then they may well have _more
than
one_ suppression. All of a sudden your attack is no longer quite so
easy.....
I think you are falling into the trap of not thinking at the right scale.
Weapons in the hands of regular troops are effective out to 40" (400m), which
is not unreasonable for SF weapons. Thus the firefight is going to be engaged
much further out than your 140m. In fact, if an attacking unit has got to
within 140m of its target and has suffered no casualties and is not
suppressed, they _deserve_ to get in close and take them out.
Have you actually tried it out in practice? I suspect from your comments that
your examples are pure theory. Try it in an actual game and see what happens.
When we were playtesting, one of the scenarios we used was three
squads on each side and a board with _no terrain
whatsoever_. Forces started about 40"-50" apart. Try that and see
how difficult it is to get within 15" with no adverse effects.....
Mike Elliott
_______________________Reply Seperator _____________________________
Lets pick an even more contrived (no terrain involved, both A and B start 140
m apart in the open) example where they (the moving force, B in my previous
examples) are 140 m out, then they activate and dash 120m as there combat move
(leaving them 20 m from A), and then fire (probably very
effectively) at the patiently waiting-to-die formation A whose only goal
in life was to engage B at 60 m. Now one can (I believe fatuously) argue that
A should have activated and fired at B at 140m or that B dashed so fast they
caught A by surprise, but that 140 m dash might be from long range to short!
And a dash from long to short where the prepared defending player can't engage
you seems just wrong. I mean, I've been a member of a squad in
contact with other units closing by rapid bounds or Advance-To-Contact
drill if you prefer, and even when the defenders (us) were disorganized as any
group of ten or less guys could really be, there is no way that an enemy force
could have moved from a long range into an effective or short range without us
at least getting the opportunity to put rounds downrange and engage them.
Covering 20 to 120m in the sight of a stationary foe who might have the
inclination to fire upon you is generally speaking an undesirable situation (I
might go so far as to suggest it is a recurrent nightmare of most ground
pounders), let alone conducting some other action in plain sight afterwards!.
My Infantry CO always said you wanted to fight dead and dying soldiers, not
living, breathing, awake and aware men with weapons and an inclination to use
them. Sometimes you have to 'run into the guns' but it should be a scenario
where you pretty much expect to take brutal casualties because you don't have
any choice. You should never expect to be able to charge a prepared position
and (with a lucky die roll) cover the distance before they can fire..... I
think any infantry commander that depended on this tactic under normal
circumstances would be court martialled. Without some for of Overwatch or
Gaurd, it seems to me that (assuming mean roll of 3.5 on your combat move) you
stand a pretty decent chance of covering 70m (enough to take you from medium
range to short, and if you roll good, enough to take you from much further
out, perhaps long range, to short) AND then conducting a fire action before
the emplaced enemy can reply.
> At 02:32 PM 1/23/98 +0000, you wrote:
Mike,
I think you may have missed the point here a bit. Obviously with no terrain
the squads will get beat up. [I wouldn't think a game played that way would be
very fun. It would all boil down to who got the initiative and made good
rolls.] Anyway, I agree with the Tom's thoughts about overwatch. No matter how
you cut it squads in SG2 can run around the battlefield far more freely than
in "real" life. With the current system once a squad fires an overwatch it is
"helpless." Sure, you should have supporting units but in the games I've
played we never have more than four or five (max) squads on a side. With
terrain and stuff it's pretty hard to setup ideal mutual overwatch unless you
want to clump your troops together. The ability to have a support weapon
DOMINATE a position is lost. I like a variation of Miguel's idea where a UNIT
can spend an activation "setting up" overwatch and then it places a marker to
indicate an overwatch "zone" that it can attack multiple times. This stops
gamey tactics of getting a unit to fire overwatch so you can then storm it
with impunity. It also gives support weapons their proper place.
BTW, I think DS2 and SG2 are two of the most enjoyable games I've played.
Someone else probably already said this, but IMHO, if a unit is in the open at
long range, real life suggests you wait for them to close and then blast them.
The rules suggest one of the best courses of action is to suppress them,
then move closer yourself. This is a reasonable tradeoff often enough to be
playable.
> From: tmcarth@fox.nstn.ca[SMTP:tmcarth@fox.nstn.ca]
> Someone else probably already said this, but IMHO, if a unit is
"Real life" can really play tricks on you sometimes! A lot of military
doctrine will have you engaging the enemy at maximum range if you are in
defence, but waiting for close range in the attack (you use the artillery or
other fire support to suppress him until you get to close range). Other
considerations of course include maintaining concealment for surprise eg the
ambush.
Personally, I generally engage as soon as I have a target; seize and then
maintain the initiative.
> Someone else probably already said this, but IMHO, if a unit is in the
This depends on the situation. Usually I think it would be preferable to
suppress the enemy with massed gunfire while advancing other forces to close
with the enemy. The suppression fire has the combined effect of lessening the
effectiveness of return fire, saps the suppressed unit's morale and lowers
their mobility. Of course, if your intent is an ambush, then waiting for the
enemy to close is preferable.
Tony
> The rules suggest one of the best courses of action is to suppress
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> "Real life" can really play tricks on you sometimes! A lot of military
I guess the answer would be what type of mission are you running.
If you are doing an attack, suppressing the enemy with one element while
bringing another element to attack the suppressed element works good. This
uses the bounding technique where units subdivide and portions provide
suppressive fire while other portions move to posistion.
If you are doing an ambush or are in the defence, then waiting till the enemy
has entered the kill zone (area of most concentrated fire) is more effective.
You wouldn't want to fire to early, and give away your positions. That would
allow the enemy to manuver out of your kill zone.
In a hasty defence you might want to attack at range to disrupt the attacking
elements momentum. By dropping several elements you might slow, stop or divert
the attacking element. Suppression by fire is a good way of slowing, or
splitting an attack.
Until you try close assaulting powerarmour with Kra'vak. (in joke)
'Neath Southern Skies
*********************
Give me a tall ship, & a star to destroy with her.
> -----Original Message-----
> Glover, Owen wrote:
Yep.. suppress them with small arms and kill them with Buzz-bombs! (And
then the medkit kicks in and you have to do it all over again..)
It doesn't help that much when a gunship does an emergency landing on your
head (splat....);(
'Neath Southern Skies
*********************
Give me a tall ship, & a star to destroy with her.
> -----Original Message-----
(And
> then the medkit kicks in and you have to do it all over again..)
Tactical Advice:
DON'T try close assualting Power Armour! Shoot from a safe distance!
> ----------